November 6, 2012 (2012-11-06) | |||||||||||||||||||
Two-Year State Budget Cycle Initiative | |||||||||||||||||||
| Results | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||
 No 60-70% 50-60% | |||||||||||||||||||
| [1] | |||||||||||||||||||
The 2012 California Proposition 31 was officially titled "State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute." It was a California ballot measure in theNovember 2012 California elections. The initiative would have established a two-year state budget, allowed thegovernor to make budget cuts in fiscal emergencies, prevented the statestate legislature from spending more than $25 million without creating spending cuts or other budget offsets, and allowed local governments the ability to transfer certain amounts of property taxes among themselves instead of the state.[2][3] Although the law was supported by theCalifornia Republican Party, multiple conservative groups came out against proposition 31, including members of theTea Party movement who viewed the law as a way to undermine property rights.[4][5][6]
If Proposition 31 had passed, it was estimated that the state government would have suffered a loss of $200 million, as these funds would have been transferred to local governments.[7]
| Newspaper | Position |
|---|---|
| Bay Area Reporter[8] | Oppose |
| Fresno Bee[9] | Support |
| Los Angeles Daily News[10] | Support |
| Los Angeles Times[11] | Oppose |
| Modesto Bee[12] | Support |
| Orange County Register[13] | Oppose |
| Sacramento Bee[14] | Oppose |
| San Diego Union-Tribune[15] | Support |
| San Francisco Bay Guardian[16] | Oppose |
| San Francisco Chronicle[17] | Support |
| San Jose Mercury News[18] | Support |
| Ventura County Star[19] | Oppose |
